Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
26 ARRB Conference Research driving efficiency, Sydney, New South Wales 2014
ABSTRACT
There is a growing need to embrace sustainability principles in asset management practice
within road transportation organizations. Emerging climate change, resource shortages,
financial limitations and a dramatic increase in energy costs are creating challenges in
evaluating sustainability at each level of the asset management process.
This paper presents a systematic approach (a Framework) for integrating sustainability into road
asset management using performance measures. A key feature of this approach is that it moves
away from the traditional approach of road asset management that is concerned with physical
assets, and instead promotes a holistic view of the tangible and intangible assets related to road
transport. Additionally, the sustainability evaluation has been extended to cover six relevant
dimensions including economic, financial, technological, social, corporate and environmental.
The proposed framework can be used to develop outcome measures and process measures
based on the agencys requirements and data availability. The outcome measures can be used
to evaluate sustainability performance of the overall Road Transportation Asset Management
(RTAM) practice and the process measures can be used for performance evaluation at each
level of the RTAM practice. This paper also presents a proposal for the development of
outcome- based and process-based sustainability indices relevant to each of the six
sustainability dimensions that are used to evaluate sustainable performance of RTAM practice.
INTRODUCTION
Road transportation agencies play a significant role in providing highways and other
infrastructure for communities to facilitate efficient movement of goods and people. In the last
two decades, they have been facing a challenging task of balancing efficient services with
limited resources and at the same time addressing road transport-related negative impacts on
the environment. The Road Transportation Asset Management (RTAM) plays a major role in
providing sustainable services while responding to the emerging challenges. These challenges
include both external influences from external factors (e.g. global climate changes, resource
shortages etc.) and internal influences within the organization (e.g. financial limitation, lack of
leadership and professional staff etc.). The challenges are creating a global need for the
integration of a sustainability concept within the RTAM process.
The main aim of this study is to develop an assessment framework that is flexible and
applicable to transport agencies for evaluating sustainability performance of the RTAM practice.
This starts with integrating the sustainability concept into the asset management cycle using
performance measures. These identified measures have been used to develop outcome- based
(objective) and process-based (subjective) indices for assessing sustainability in RTAM practice.
Both of these are generic and they can be used by any road organization based on their
requirements and data availability
The scope of this study is not limited to the conventional road asset management concept of
minimizing whole of life cycle cost of physical assets. It addresses the sustainability of all the
assets of a system, including the physical, human, financial, information and intangible assets
that are important aspects of an integrated RTAM system. The proposed methodology adopts a
six dimensional (environmental, social, economic, corporate, financial, and technological)
sustainability concept for RTAM that is capable of addressing rising sustainability issues in asset
management which are not explicitly addressed by the conventional sustainability concepts.
For this study, the British Standard Institute Publically Available Specification (BSI PAS) 55
definition has been adopted, which provides a more focused definition for quantifiable
businesses and services (Ouertani, Parlikad & Mcfarlane 2008).It states the following:
asset management is systematic and coordinated activities and practices through which
an organization optimally and sustainably manages its assets and asset systems, their
associated performance, risks, and expenditures over their life cycles for the purpose of
achieving its organizational strategic plan (Institute of Asset Management 2008)
The PAS 55 definition implies that there are four other categories of assets that have to be
managed in order to achieve the organizations strategic plan. The other categories are human
assets, financial assets, intangible assets, and information assets. These four asset categories
can be further explained as follows (Institute of Asset Management 2008)
Human assets category - Corporate assets such as leadership, organizations owners,
managers, employees, contractors and suppliers, motivation, communication, role and
responsibilities, knowledge, experience, leadership and team work.
Intangible assets - Social impacts, reputation, image, morality and constraints.
Financial assets - Life cycle cost, capital investment criteria, operation cost, and value of
asset performance.
Information assets- condition, performance, activity and cost opportunity assets.
Sustainability principles need to be combined with key principles and attributes of asset
management for better sustainability performance. Since the definition of asset management
adopted in this study promotes a holistic view of all the systems assets, then sustainability of
RTAM performance can be considered multidimensional. Six sustainability dimensions are
proposed, including environmental, social, economic, financial, corporate and technological
domains. The definitions adopted herein for these dimensions are presented below. It is
important to have a working definition of sustainability in that it allows an organization to identify
key factors that should be invested in to achieve sustainable goals and the types of
performance measures that can be used to monitor progress (DTMR 2012; Pei et al. 2010).
Economic sustainability - It is concerned with the productivity of the asset systems for efficient
services, improvement and economic development. This includes:
Building a transport system that is resilient in the face of climate change risks.
Providing efficient services.
Improving local development.
Providing an economically feasible and affordable transport system
Financial sustainability - It is focused on investing in long and short-term financial needs for
achieving target assets performance. This includes:
Forecasting different financial needs and reserve funding
Maximizing value for money for all stakeholders.
Minimizing unexpected financial shock due to disaster situation.
To achieve the above, Austroads integrated asset management framework was used as a guide
(Austroads 2009). It comprises three main parts including strategic planning, asset
management actions, and performance feedback stages which are subdivided into seven
phases including defined objectives (phase 1), forming asset strategies (phase 2), developing
investment programme (phase 3), identifying asset requirements (phase 4), implementing work
programme (phase 5), auditing (phase 6) and reviewing (Phase 7) (Austroads 2009). Austroads
reports (Austroads 2002, 2009) were used to identify all processes and tasks involved in these
phases and their interactions. Possible internal drivers (e.g. knowledge gap, resistance to
change) and external drivers (e.g. climate change, legislation requirements) and associated
risks that may influence the different processes/tasks were identified. This helped in
establishing sustainability dimensions relevant to each phase.
Figure 1 shows the proposed conceptual framework for developing performance measurement
for RTAM. To simplify the complexity of the performance measurement development process
the seven phased asset management process is represented by the four focus areas presented
below.
1. Planning (L1) - phases 1 and 2
2. Programming (L2) - Phases 3 and 4
3. Implementation (L3) - phase 5
4. Operation and Performance feedback (L4) - Phases 6 and 7.
This helps to minimize complexity in defining performance measures relevant to the different
levels of the asset management cycle. This classification is similar to the Austroads asset
management framework classification, except that their strategic planning process has been
divided into two phases as planning (L1) and programming (L2). The fundamental components
of the framework outline the process for developing sustainability performance measures in five
steps as described below. These five steps represented as a top down approach in figure 1.
Step 1: Define sustainability dimensions - The conceptual framework defines the six
dimensions of sustainability, including economic, social, environmental, corporate, financial
and technological. The theme-based framework was used to define the multidimensional
sustainability concept.
Step2: Define sustainability goals - In this step, each sustainability dimension was defined by
the expected common sustainability goals. A goal-oriented framework was used to
interconnect sustainability dimensions with relevant sustainability goals. The defined goals
should be achievable and well balanced and they need to cover the basic principles of
sustainability and asset management. A comprehensive literature review resulted in
identifying a set of 12 generic goals for transportation agencies to address the principles of
asset management sustainability. The sustainability dimensions and proposed respective
goals are listed in table 1.
Step 3: Define sustainability objectives - The goals were further deconstructed into
achievable objectives that must be fully associated with the organizations strategic plan. The
objectives are more specific than the goals and lay the foundation for links with the
performance indicators. The proposed objectives are common to all focus areas of the asset
management cycle.
Step 4: Define performance indicators - In this step, each objective was further classified into
performance indicators. The indicators are used to interlink common objectives and
performance measures at different operational levels within the transportation organization.
The indicator refers to variables used in monitoring performance, which become
performance measures when compared against benchmark values.
Step 5: Define performance measures for different operational levels - Each indicator was
linked by one or more performance measure for the different focus areas of asset
management (L1, L2, L3, and L4). An influence-based framework was used to define
Performance measures for the different levels. Ideal performance measures are easily
understood, providing a clear indication of movement towards an established goal, and can
be tracked using accessible and available data. The selection of appropriate performance
measures is an important and challenging task and it can be applied over different
timeframes (long term, medium term and short term), for different types of analysis
(planning, operational or strategic), different levels of analysis (project, corridor, network or
regional), and relevant sustainability dimensions (Cambridge Systematics and PB Consult
2006; Ramani et al. 2012). For example, asset management at the strategic level is focused
on the long term planning of each asset group, and tactical asset management is used to
determine which assets should be replaced in the programming level (Cambridge
Systematics & Meyer 2007; Marlow D 2008 ). Therefore, the applicability of a sustainability
indicator needs to be carefully considered at the different focus levels, and measures need
to be changed accordingly.
Feedback loop
STEP 4 Indicator 1 (EN111) Indicator 2 (EN112)
STEP 5
Performance measure Implementation (L3)
Figure 1: Conceptual framework for developing performance measurement for sustainable RTAM.
Better sustainability outcomes are always influenced by the organizations best practices and
underperforming conditions need to be assessed for improvements. The internal stakeholders
are more engaged and more responsible for assessing organization processes and practices
leading to the better sustainability outcomes. However, an organizations processes are difficult
to quantify using an objective assessment due to data unavailability and other practical
considerations. This project aims to assess sustainability at each level of the asset management
cycle and two evaluation methods have been proposed to assess outcomes and processes as
follows.
1. Develop the composite indices using outcome measures (objective approach) focused on
overall sustainability performance of the organization.
2. Develop the composite indices using a subjective approach focused on processes and best
practices at each focus level of the asset management cycle
The developed measures compendium consists of a large number of measures relevant to the
different focus levels. To make the proposed method more practical in terms of data availability
simplification and application, the number of proposed measures needed to be minimized.
Following three criteria were used to prioritize and select optimum number of measures using a
measures compendium.
1. Select common measures for a particular indicator which can be used to measure
sustainability performance at the different focus levels.
2. Give priority to performance measures that have strong link to the defined sustainability
objectives.
3. Include performance measures that are currently being used to monitor and track an
agencys sustainability practice within Australia.
This approach leads to prioritising organizations outcome measures and is suitable for
assessing the overall sustainability performance of the RTAM practice. It can be used to
measure results or the impact of the organizations policies, programming, and infrastructure
decision on sustainability improvements in the organization as a whole. Table 2 provides an
example of selected outcome performance measures related to each sustainability dimension.
The example lists six sustainability dimensions in the first column and relevant goals, objectives,
indicators and performance measures in the second, third, fourth, and fifth column respectively.
Based on the level of the hierarchy in figure 1, appropriate symbols were used to illustrate
goals, objectives and indicators in table 2. Likewise, there were 45 outcome measures selected
from the compendium, which are feasible to quantify using available data and suitable models
used in practice.
Sustainable Performance
Goals Objectives Indicator
dimensions measure
Road transport
Minimize related
Environmental emission and Reduce air Air quality greenhouse gas
(EN) noise pollution pollution (EN21) (EN211) emission (Co2
(EN2) tonnes per
capita)
Enhance public Improve safety
Fatal road
health, safety, and security
Social (SO) Safety (SO111) crashes (per 100
and security requirements
000 population)
(SO1) (SO11)
Maximizing Improve system
economic efficiency and Mobility / Travel
reduce Congestion
Economic (EC) productivity by time reliability
congestion indicator
improving asset (EC111)
efficiency (EC1) (EC11)
Staff motivation
and improve Capacity and
Improve quality target workforce capabilities of Employee
Corporate (CO)
of life (CO1) within work force turnover
organization (CO112)
(CO11)
Improve Funding
Improve financial Asset
organization availability for
Financial (FI) availability ( sustainability
financial gap renewal
FI12) ratio*
affordability (FI1) (FI121)
Improve
Ensure Funding
Technological Research and Financial support
technological allocation for
development (R& for R &D
(TE) advancement sustainability
D) opportunities (TE111)
(TE1) related R&D
(TE11)
Note* - Asset sustainability ratio= (asset replacement expenditure/Annual depreciation expenditure)
To provide a quantitative basis for assessing sustainability using performance measures, multi-
criteria decision making (MCDM) method is proposed for this project. The basic steps required
in this methodology is quantification, scaling and weighting of individual measures to obtain
composite indicators for each sustainability dimension (Ramani et al. 2009). Figure 2 shows the
proposal for development of the environmental sustainability index using outcome- based
assessment. The same process is applied for each dimension and it involves the following
steps.
1. Selected performance measures are quantified.
2. Outcome performance measures are scaled using utility functions developed for each
measure (Ramani, Quadrifoglio & Zietsman 2010).
3. Scaled performance measures are then weighted by the score/ weight of the relevant
objectives to produce a score for each goal. Analytical Hierarchy process (AHP) has been
used to develop weights for each objective considering their importance in achieving
assigned sustainability goals (Saaty 1995; Su & Hassan 2007).
4. The score of each goal is then multiplied by the goals assigned weight. The environmental
sustainability index (ENSI out ) is the sum of all weighted scores. Same procedure has been
used to assign weights for each sustainability goals in step 3. All six sustainability indices are
combined to develop composite sustainability index as described later.
The process assessment is a subjective approach and it has been adopted by most of the
sustainability evaluation tools used in practice (FHWA 2013; Greensroads 2012; ISCA 2012; ISI
2011; NYSDOT 2013). For this study, it is proposed to use sets of questions to evaluate an
organization process relevant to the 12 sustainability goals. Identified performance measures
(from the compendium) and sustainable best practices are used as foundation for developing a
list of questions related to process assessment. Table 3 provides example questions relevant to
the objective EN21 (reduce air pollution). In table 3, example questions and relevant focus
levels are listed in first and second column respectively.
Air quality improvement has been incorporated into organizations vision Focus level 1
Emission analysis has been incorporated into the programme prioritization
Focus level 2
process
2. The combined scores of each focus area are then normalized and multiplied by their
assigned weights. The weights of focus areas can be determined using the analytical
hierarchy process (AHP) considering their importance in achieving each sustainability goal
(Saaty 1995; Su & Hassan 2007).
3. Finally, the Environmental Sustainability Index ((ENSI Process ) can be calculated as the sum
of the products of the scores from step 2 for each goal by the weight of that goal (e.g. EN1,
EN2, EN3, and EN4). The weights of goals for each dimension can be also determined
using AHP pairwise comparisons considering their potential contributions to the dimension
(Su & Hassan 2007). These approaches are applied to each dimension separately and
combined into one composite index as described in the next section.
Process evaluation
Question related to Question related to Question related to
Question related to
Objective (EN21)
Objective (EN21) Objective (EN21) Objective (EN21) Evaluation of each process is based on
ranking agencys performance within
each focus area (using a suitable scale)
in addressing each of the objectives
relevant to each and every goal related to
Question related to Question related to Question related to Question related to every sustainability dimension).
Objective (EN22) Objective (EN22) Objective (EN22) Objective (EN22)
The process measures can be recommended in circumstances where data is not available for
quantitative analysis and they can be used to determine the influence of the organization
policies, strategies and higher management decisions in relation to sustainability performances
in advance.
Special care should be exercised when assigning weights in each step of the composite index
development. However, sensitivity analysis needs to be done to improve the accuracy of the
weighting process. That will minimize negative effects of the indices value on the decision
making. The outcome measures and process measures however, can vary across agencies
depending on availability of relevant data and information and acceptance by staff. Therefore,
the same measures and conditions need to be considered when comparing sustainability
performance of two different road organizations.
The next phase of this research project would be to collect data needed for developing the
different measures and to test the frameworks and the proposed approaches for developing the
different indices. These include process/practice-based and outcome-based indices and
relevant composite indices. Target values for each measure would also need to be determined
together with scales for the different indices of sustainability dimensions. These processes will
be undertaken in consultation with the relevant road authorities.
REFERENCES
Austroads 2002, Integrated Asset Management Guidelines for Road Networks, Austroads Inc.
Australia.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc & Meyer, MD., 2007, US Domestic scan programme: Best
practices in transporation asset management: NCHEP 20-68. The AASTHO and Transportation
officialsFHA, USA .
Cambridge Systematises, Inc.PB Consult, Inc. & Texas TeTransportation Institute. Performance
measures and target fo rtransportation Asset Management, Transportation research Board,
Washingtoon, D.C. 2006.
Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR), 2012. Sustainable framework, Queensland
Government.
Elkington, J. 1997, Cannibals with Forks: The triple Bottom line of 21st century Business: New
Society Publishers, Gabrioal Island.
Gilbert, R., 2005, Defining sustainable transportation, The Centre for Sustainable
Transportation, Canada, 2005.
http://cst.uwinnipeg.ca/documents/Defining_Sustainable_2005.pdf, Accessed 12/9/2011.
Institute of Asset Management (IAM) British Standard Institute (BSI). 2008, Publically Available
Specification (PAS) 55-1:2008 Part 1: Specification for the optimized management of physical
assets. UK.
Jeon, CM. 2007, Incorporating sustainability into transportation planning and decision making:
Definitions, performance measures, and evaluation thesis, School of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology,
Marlow, D.R., 2008, Sustainbility based asset management, Water service associatin, National
resarch FLAGSHIP: Water for healthy country. CSIRO, Australia, 2008.
New Zealand National Asset Management Steering Group and the Institute of Public Works
Engineering Australia. 2006. International Infrastructure Management Manual (IIMM): version
3.0, N.Z. Association of Local Government NZ Inc. (INGENIUM).
Nichols, J., N. Garrick, and C. Atkinson-Palombo. 2009, Framework for Developing Indicators of
Sustainability for Transportation Planning. Presented at 88th Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Ouertani, M.Z., A.K. Parlikad, and D. Mcfarlane. 2008. Towards an approach to select an asset
information management strategy. International Journal of Computer Science and Applications,
Techno-mathematics Research Foundation, Vol. 5, issue 3b, pp. 25-44.
Pei, YL, Amekudzi, AA, Meyer, MD, Barrella, EM & Ross, CL 2010, 'Performance Measurement
Frameworks and Development of Effective Sustainable Transport Strategies and Indicators',
Transportation research record: journal of the transportation research board no. 2163, pp. 73-
80.
Ramani, T.L, Quadrifoglio, L & Zietsman, J. 2010, 'Accounting for nonlinearity in the MCDM
approach for a transportation planning application', IEEE transactions on engineering
management, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 702-710.
Ramani, TL, Zietsman, o, Gudmundsson, H, Hall, RP & Marsden, G., 2012, 'Framework for
sustainability assessment by transportation agencies', Transportation research record, vol.
2242, no. -1, pp. 9-18.
Saaty, T.L., 1995, Decision making for Leaders: The analytical hierarchy process for decision in
a complex world. RWS publication, Pittsburgh.
Su, M. and R. Hassan, 2007. Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Road Asset
Management- User Manual, Austroads Inc. 2007.
The Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure (ISI). 2012, Envision sustainable infrastructure rating
system, from
http://www.sustainableinfrastructure.org/portal/projects/assessment/GuidanceManual.pdf,
accessed 11/5/2013.
The New York Department of Transport 2013, Green LITES Project Design Certification
Programme, from https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/greenlites Accessed 21.2.2013,
World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987, Our Common Future. Oxford
University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom, 1987.
Zietsman, J & Rilett, LR, 2002. Susutainble transportation conceptualization and performance
measures. Texas Transportation Institute, The Texas A&M University System.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was undertaken as part of the Performance Measures for a Sustainable Asset
Management Practice research project sponsored by the DTMR, Queensland. The authors
would like to acknowledge Michelle Baran and, Yu Sang for their valuable contribution and
guidance for this project.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Gunarathna W.P.H BSc. (Civil) (Hons), MSc (Civil)
W.P.H. Gunarathna graduated as a Civil Engineer from University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka with a
BSc. (Hons) degree in 2007. After graduation, he earned a graduate research assistantship to
read for his master's degree in pavement modelling at Transportation Engineering division,
University of Moratuwa. Gunarathna graduated with a MSc. (Civil Engineering) in 2008. He was
recruited as a lecturer in same department soon after his graduation. During that period, he was
conducted many research and consultancy projects as a Highway Engineering specialist and
has conducted many workshops and training programs in Highway Engineering for Engineers
and Technologists. In addition, He worked as a visiting lecturer at General Sir John Kotelawala
Defence University -Sri Lanka from 2008 to 2010. Gunarathna has since returned to Swinburne
University and is currently reading for his PhD in developing performance measures for
sustainable road transport asset management.
Rayya H. Hassan PhD Civil Eng., MEng Construction Management, BSc Civil Eng.
Rayya worked at Swinburne University of Technology (SUT), Civil Engineering, from 1998 to
2005 in different academic roles. From 2005 to 2008, she worked at the ARRB Group Ltd as a
senior then as a Principal Research Engineer in the area of Asset Management. While working
at ARRB, she was responsible for managing a number of Austroads research projects. In 2008
she re-joined SUT as a Senior Lecturer in Civil Engineering.
A/ Porf. Julia Lamborn BE(SIT), GradDipChemEng (SIT), MEng (SUT), PhD (SUT), FIEAust
CPEng.
Julia Lamborn is the Associate Dean (Education) for the Faculty of Engineering and Industrial
Sciences at Swinburne University of Technology, where she has been since 1990. Prior to that,
she was the cooling tower thermal design engineer at the State Electricity Commission of
Victoria for 10 years. Her main fields of interest are landfill gas modelling, hazardous waste
landfills, waste management, environmental effects analysis, environmental engineering,
engineering education and renewable energy. She is very active within Engineers Australia and
currently is the immediate past chair of the Environmental College and is a member of the
National Congress.
The Author allows ARRB Group Ltd to publish the work/s submitted for the 26th ARRB Conference,
granting ARRB the non-exclusive right to:
The Author retains the right to use their work, illustrations (line art, photographs, figures, plates) and
research data in their own future works
The Author warrants that they are entitled to deal with the Intellectual Property Rights in the works
submitted, including clearing all third party intellectual property rights and obtaining formal permission from
their respective institutions or employers before submission, where necessary.